The dark side of Steve Jobs

With all the accolades of Steve Job’s life, and there are many, comes a slightly darker side that many of us are aware of. Over the years, I’ve done sort of a one man boycott of Apple products, and not just because he’s a huge supporter of Nancy Pelosi, but for many of the reasons detailed here in the Gawker article. Especially disturbing was his net zero of charitable giving as best we know as compared to Bill Gates’ $60 billion. Although there are many reasons IMO, for the above reason alone, I remained a Microsoft customer where I could or anybody, but Apple,

Christian73 saidSteve Jobs gave away billions of dollars in his life. He just did so anonymously.

As I said: "best we know". Sure aren't many folks with any knowledge of it.

"Mr. Jobs’s views on charity are unclear since he rarely talks about it. But in 1997, when Mr. Jobs returned to Apple, he closed the company’s philanthropic programs. At the time, he said he wanted to restore the company’s profitability. Despite the company’s $14 billion in profits last year and its $76 billion cash pile today, the giving programs have never been reinstated.

While many high-growth technology companies have philanthropic arms, Apple does not. It does not have a company matching program for charitable giving by its employees like some other Fortune 500 companies. The company did donate $100,000 in 2008 to a group seeking to block Proposition 8, a ballot measure that would have banned same-sex marriage in California. But over all, Apple has been one of “America’s least philanthropic companies,” as termed by Stanford Social Innovation Review, a magazine about the nonprofit sector, in 2007."

freedomisntfree saidWith all the accolades of Steve Job’s life, and there are many, comes a slightly darker side that many of us are aware of. Over the years, I’ve done sort of a one man boycott of Apple products, and not just because he’s a huge supporter of Nancy Pelosi, but for many of the reasons detailed here in the Hawker article. Especially disturbing was his net zero of charitable giving as best we know as compared to Bill Gates’ $60 billion. Although there are many reasons IMO, for the above reason alone, I remained a Microsoft customer where I could or anybody, but Apple,

Dude, did you just try to sneak in partisanship into this thread Is this really one of your consideration in selecting a product? Anyways, moving on from politics — the article highlighted something that should be common sense — nobody is perfect.

People are polite when talking about Steve Jobs at the moment because the man is dead. Seriously, is that hard to understand? When someone passes away, the good generally overshadows the bad when discussing that person's life.

Even though Bill Gates is known for his charitable work through the Gates Foundation, I'm sure you can find some flaws to pick at, like the article did with Steve Jobs.

freedomisntfree saidWith all the accolades of Steve Job’s life, and there are many, comes a slightly darker side that many of us are aware of. Over the years, I’ve done sort of a one man boycott of Apple products, and not just because he’s a huge supporter of Nancy Pelosi, but for many of the reasons detailed here in the Hawker article. Especially disturbing was his net zero of charitable giving as best we know as compared to Bill Gates’ $60 billion. Although there are many reasons IMO, for the above reason alone, I remained a Microsoft customer where I could or anybody, but Apple,

Dude, did you just try to sneak in partisanship into this thread Is this really one of your consideration in selecting a product? Anyways, moving on from politics — the article highlighted something that should be common sense — nobody is perfect.

People are polite when talking about Steve Jobs at the moment because the man is dead. Seriously, is that hard to understand? When someone passes away, the good generally overshadows the bad when discussing that person's life.

Even though Bill Gates is known for his charitable work through the Gates Foundation, I'm sure you can find some flaws to pick at, like the article did with Steve Jobs.

"Is this really one of your consideration in selecting a product?"

YES

"People are polite when talking about Steve Jobs at the moment because the man is dead. Seriously, is that hard to understand? "

venue35 saidI don't think that Job's net worth was anywhere near that of Gates but you do have a point. I knew who someone who worked for Apple in the mid to late 90's He worked in the audio department and told me that Jobs treated people like doormats. He said he was a Tyrrant and that he quit because he couldn't stand him and work under those conditions anymore.. Maybe Jobs was a tyrrant maybe he wasn't... but in '98 and on look at what he did for Apple.

People like Steve Jobs who are essentially geniuses are often-times tyrants because they have a hard time being surrounded by mediocrity and they have little patience for incompetence. People who are not on their A game had better step it up or get out of the way when around these type of people. Steve Jobs got where he is by demanding the very best not only of himself but of those around him.

DoomsDayAlpaca saidMy only issue with him is that he made "geek" "chic". I'm sorry, just because you own a Macbook pro, you are not a "computer whiz" nor are you a geek.

You EARN that title.

Yes. Apple dumbed things down and made technology palatable for the masses. There were mp3 players before the iPhone, multifunction phones before the iPhone, tablet PC's before the iPad. Granted, their hardware is good, and their interface is really what sells their products, so even Grandma can figure out how to download Katy Perry onto her mp3 player. Which is great, since it is a way of transmitting tech to the masses in a very easy way. And they're pretty.

My problem is that they're profiting off of a hugely successful marketing and branding plan. By purchasing this product, you allegedly are now in this elite group of people who love technology and are innovative - yeah right. If you really were technologically gifted, you'd be working with PC's since you'd be smart enough to figure it out in the first place. And since it is remarkably easier to tinker and modify PC's compared to Apple products. And less expensive. And considerably less douchebaggy.

Jobs wasn't necessarily that innovative in terms of the creation of products. He just did a really good job selling that shit. I felt even when he was alive, that he was convincing people to pay for extra shit that they don't really need. Like, not everyone needs an iPhone. Certainly not to play Angry Birds, or stupid shit like that. Nobody needs an iPad.

freedomisntfree saidWith all the accolades of Steve Job’s life, and there are many, comes a slightly darker side that many of us are aware of. Over the years, I’ve done sort of a one man boycott of Apple products, and not just because he’s a huge supporter of Nancy Pelosi, but for many of the reasons detailed here in the Gawker article. Especially disturbing was his net zero of charitable giving as best we know as compared to Bill Gates’ $60 billion. Although there are many reasons IMO, for the above reason alone, I remained a Microsoft customer where I could or anybody, but Apple,

venue35 saidI don't think that Job's net worth was anywhere near that of Gates but you do have a point. I knew who someone who worked for Apple in the mid to late 90's He worked in the audio department and told me that Jobs treated people like doormats. He said he was a Tyrrant and that he quit because he couldn't stand him and work under those conditions anymore.. Maybe Jobs was a tyrrant maybe he wasn't... but in '98 and on look at what he did for Apple.

People like Steve Jobs who are essentially geniuses are often-times tyrants because they have a hard time being surrounded by mediocrity and they have little patience for incompetence. People who are not on their A game had better step it up or get out of the way when around these type of people. Steve Jobs got where he is by demanding the very best not only of himself but of those around him.

I agree. Nobody seems to have a problem with it in Gordon Ramsey or Dr. Phil, but heaven forbid if Steve Jobs ran a tight ship. That's exactly how they got their brand and image to where it was: ubiquitous with any sort of computers or smartphone product.

And for the record, I think Gawker went overboard in that article. The guy wasn't even in the ground yet, and they were trash talking how a person ran their family life. Everyone makes mistakes in their lives, and does things they may not be proud of. What does it say that they had to go back 30 odd years to find something to complain about? They had legitimate points about Apple's human rights conditions in China, but then they added that special blurb in there.

majoranimalsloverz saidI did not realize that everyone is obligated to donate. When has donations become a must? What % of your income do you contribute each year? Your post is so 2005.

I don't believe that anybody is "obligated" to donate to anything. However, if you are a public figure or public company people do evaluate you and / or your products using many criteria. In this case, the poster states that philanthropy is one of the benchmarks that he chooses to employ.

It is similar to "green" corporations. Coke is using a "plant bottle" and pushing their commitment to green initiatives in their marketing and corporate image. They are not obligated to be green but it sells their image and products. Donations to certain causes does the same thing as "going green". It sells a product, boosts a corporate image and (can) accomplish some good at the same time... There is a reason that most fortune 500 companies make donations to causes.

freedomisntfree saidWith all the accolades of Steve Job’s life, and there are many, comes a slightly darker side that many of us are aware of. Over the years, I’ve done sort of a one man boycott of Apple products, and not just because he’s a huge supporter of Nancy Pelosi, but for many of the reasons detailed here in the Gawker article. Especially disturbing was his net zero of charitable giving as best we know as compared to Bill Gates’ $60 billion. Although there are many reasons IMO, for the above reason alone, I remained a Microsoft customer where I could or anybody, but Apple,

I did not realize that everyone is obligated to donate. When has donations become a must? What % of your income do you contribute each year? Your post is so 2005.

No one is ‘obligated’, that’s why it’s called donation. If it was obligated to do so, it would be a tax. However, it remains the correct thing to do. And no, sorry, my post was written just two days ago.

majoranimalsloverz saidI did not realize that everyone is obligated to donate. When has donations become a must? What % of your income do you contribute each year? Your post is so 2005.

I don't believe that anybody is "obligated" to donate to anything. However, if you are a public figure or public company people do evaluate you and / or your products using many criteria. In this case, the poster states that philanthropy is one of the benchmarks that he chooses to employ.

It is similar to "green" corporations. Coke is using a "plant bottle" and pushing their commitment to green initiatives in their marketing and corporate image. They are not obligated to be green but it sells their image and products. Donations to certain causes does the same thing as "going green". It sells a product, boosts a corporate image and (can) accomplish some good at the same time... There is a reason that most fortune 500 companies make donations to causes.

The company involvement, underlined below, is at least as important as philanthropy by the CEO. Good corporate citizens encourage the ‘rank and file’ to be involved in their respective communities, something that from everything I read, Apple did not do.

Apple does not. It does not have a company matching program for charitable giving by its employees like some other Fortune 500 companies. But over all, Apple has been one of “America’s least philanthropic companies,” as termed by Stanford Social Innovation Review, a magazine about the nonprofit sector, in 2007."

majoranimalsloverz saidI did not realize that everyone is obligated to donate. When has donations become a must? What % of your income do you contribute each year? Your post is so 2005.

I don't believe that anybody is "obligated" to donate to anything. However, if you are a public figure or public company people do evaluate you and / or your products using many criteria. In this case, the poster states that philanthropy is one of the benchmarks that he chooses to employ.

It is similar to "green" corporations. Coke is using a "plant bottle" and pushing their commitment to green initiatives in their marketing and corporate image. They are not obligated to be green but it sells their image and products. Donations to certain causes does the same thing as "going green". It sells a product, boosts a corporate image and (can) accomplish some good at the same time... There is a reason that most fortune 500 companies make donations to causes.

The company involvement, underlined below, is at least as important as philanthropy by the CEO. Good corporate citizens encourage the ‘rank and file’ to be involved in their respective communities, something that from everything I read, Apple did not do.

Apple does not. It does not have a company matching program for charitable giving by its employees like some other Fortune 500 companies. But over all, Apple has been one of “America’s least philanthropic companies,” as termed by Stanford Social Innovation Review, a magazine about the nonprofit sector, in 2007."

So what if Apple does not have a matching fund for donations. Its business contribute much more to society than any monies that one of its founder can ever donate. I am not sure what is your point behind your post. Once again, it is a DONATION. If S Jobs chose not to, that is his prerogative. By putting pressure on someone to donate is outright pathetic. And you are trying to require him to donate. That is silly!

"Let me know when you guys begin to track how much money are donated by JLo, JZ, Beyonce, Madonna, The Olsen Twins.... The Olsen Twins are worth billion of dollars. When are public figures required to donate, but those who are not "public" figure not required? I don't understand the logic. "

majoranimalsloverz saidI did not realize that everyone is obligated to donate. When has donations become a must? What % of your income do you contribute each year? Your post is so 2005.

I don't believe that anybody is "obligated" to donate to anything. However, if you are a public figure or public company people do evaluate you and / or your products using many criteria. In this case, the poster states that philanthropy is one of the benchmarks that he chooses to employ.

It is similar to "green" corporations. Coke is using a "plant bottle" and pushing their commitment to green initiatives in their marketing and corporate image. They are not obligated to be green but it sells their image and products. Donations to certain causes does the same thing as "going green". It sells a product, boosts a corporate image and (can) accomplish some good at the same time... There is a reason that most fortune 500 companies make donations to causes.

You are arguing about companies, not an individual, donate. Apple as a corporation donate. It is obnoxious to expose one person out of the whole company because he chose not to donate! When are they going to list all the name of public figures (J LO, Beyonce, Madonna, Olsen Twins, Donald Trump...) and how much money they donated this year.

freedomisntfree said"Let me know when you guys begin to track how much money are donated by JLo, JZ, Beyonce, Madonna, The Olsen Twins.... The Olsen Twins are worth billion of dollars. When are public figures required to donate, but those who are not "public" figure not required? I don't understand the logic. "

And once again, who said anything about "required" ?

If you are not trying to put pressure on his donation, then why are you posting this? What are your purpose of posting this besides trying to say bad things about a man who just die? Are you trying to cause more pain to this family? I don't understand why you posted this in the first place.

How would you like if someone tells the world that you are not donate enough based on your income?

Let me know when you guys begin to track how much money are donated by JLo, JZ, Beyonce, Madonna, The Olsen Twins.... The Olsen Twins are worth billion of dollars. When are public figures required to donate, but those who are not "public" figure not required? I don't understand the logic. "

No NO you're not gonna pull that one. I DID NOT post the above. You did before you rewrote your post

And once again, who said anything about "required" ?

If you are not trying to put pressure on his donation, then why are you posting this? What are your purpose of posting this besides trying to say bad things about a man who just die? Are you trying to cause more pain to this family? I don't understand why you posted this in the first place.

How would you like if someone tells the world that you are not donate enough based on your income?

Dudette, I did NOT write the Gawker article, but similar is out there in many other sources and its part of the entire story of Steve Jobs.

majoranimalsloverz saidI did not realize that everyone is obligated to donate. When has donations become a must? What % of your income do you contribute each year? Your post is so 2005.

I don't believe that anybody is "obligated" to donate to anything. However, if you are a public figure or public company people do evaluate you and / or your products using many criteria. In this case, the poster states that philanthropy is one of the benchmarks that he chooses to employ.

It is similar to "green" corporations. Coke is using a "plant bottle" and pushing their commitment to green initiatives in their marketing and corporate image. They are not obligated to be green but it sells their image and products. Donations to certain causes does the same thing as "going green". It sells a product, boosts a corporate image and (can) accomplish some good at the same time... There is a reason that most fortune 500 companies make donations to causes.

The company involvement, underlined below, is at least as important as philanthropy by the CEO. Good corporate citizens encourage the ‘rank and file’ to be involved in their respective communities, something that from everything I read, Apple did not do.

Apple does not. It does not have a company matching program for charitable giving by its employees like some other Fortune 500 companies. But over all, Apple has been one of “America’s least philanthropic companies,” as termed by Stanford Social Innovation Review, a magazine about the nonprofit sector, in 2007."

So what if Apple does not have a matching fund for donations. Its business contribute much more to society than any monies that one of its founder can ever donate.

Good, do both. Microsoft does and they seem to do just fine. So do many or most of the fortune 500. It's a GOOD thing, in fact a very good thing to ENCOURAGE the employees' involvement in their community regardless of how you want to define 'community'.

I am not sure what is your point behind your post. Once again, it is a DONATION. If S Jobs chose not to, that is his prerogative. By putting pressure on someone to donate is outright pathetic. And you are trying to require him to donate. That is silly!

If fact, we did one yesterday to benefit education and conservation efforts that the Columbus Zoo sponsors for the Central Ohio area.

We had local company / corporate sponsors plus robust individual participation. We were expecting around 400 cars and ended up with 600 at $20 per head and $15 if preregistered. Plus, given the additional attendance from folks who wanted to come to the show, but didn’t bring cars, we probably raised $20 - $25k for a very nice Sunday.

Its great fun: we raise a bunch of money for local conservation causes; give the locals a bit of automotive history, and given our average age – a bit of human history. We get to hang out with our tea party friends, support the local restaurants that cater the event and swap old car stories.

Couldn’t be a better way to spend a beautiful Sunday and engage in a little philanthropy while we’re at it. Raises money for charity, gets the beautiful old iron out of the garage, bring the community together for a fun family event and keeps the old geezers engaged with the community.

And to answer your earlier question, I participate in something similar about once a week for six months of the year.

freedomisntfree saidWith all the accolades of Steve Job’s life, and there are many, comes a slightly darker side that many of us are aware of. Over the years, I’ve done sort of a one man boycott of Apple products, and not just because he’s a huge supporter of Nancy Pelosi, but for many of the reasons detailed here in the Gawker article. Especially disturbing was his net zero of charitable giving as best we know as compared to Bill Gates’ $60 billion. Although there are many reasons IMO, for the above reason alone, I remained a Microsoft customer where I could or anybody, but Apple,

majoranimalsloverz saidSo what if Apple does not have a matching fund for donations. Its business contribute much more to society than any monies that one of its founder can ever donate. I am not sure what is your point behind your post. Once again, it is a DONATION. If S Jobs chose not to, that is his prerogative. By putting pressure on someone to donate is outright pathetic. And you are trying to require him to donate. That is silly!

Actually, it is not silly. Every consumer is entitled to place criteria on the companies and products that they purchase. If somebody wants to demand that the company founder show some leadership in the department of philanthropy it is their prerogative. I can not understand why you seem to be upset that people use various standards to judge where they put their money. When Target donated money to anti-gay causes people got upset and boycotted and were within their rights to refuse to purchase from that corporation. I understand that donations are not a factor in your decision of what to purchase- but for some people it is. Nobody is demanding that Apple donate money. Some people will not support a company with their money or praise who does not support their community. Everybody is entitled to give or withhold their money to any charity OR company they wish using whatever criteria they wish to use.

majoranimalsloverz saidIf you are not trying to put pressure on his donation, then why are you posting this? What are your purpose of posting this besides trying to say bad things about a man who just die? Are you trying to cause more pain to this family? I don't understand why you posted this in the first place.

I seriously doubt that his family trolls this forum worried about what a couple of people think of the man. I have given a couple of eulogies in the last couple of years... In each I touch on a fault or two in addition to their positive attributes. Just because somebody is dead does not automatically qualify them for sainthood and remove them or their actions from criticism or at least critiquing. (I realize that most people do not do that in eulogies, but I had many compliments and worked it in to an overall theme.)